120 film: HP5+ pushed to 3200 HELP!

[Mark Antony]

Hi Pentaxuser
I'm going though the evaluation this winter. Last winter I did some Acros in a darkened room, grey carded at 1/30 at f5,6 with my Mintola spotmeter F set at 6400.
This shot was 1/60 at f5,6 ~ equivalent to EI 12,800

Far from perfect, but for me it's a test, a work in progress.
I semi stand developed in Rodinal 1:100 (5ml in 500ml water) for 20 mins, the negs are a bit thin for conventional printing, they scan OK but next time I'll try 45 mins or even an hour.

I think that this is contentious for some people, but I'm starting to think Rodinal is a sort of chemical HDR, the way it holds back the highlights and lets the shadows 'catch up' contrast can be low as pushing increases it anyhow and low light often gives high contrast shadow/highlights.
Obviously my mind isn't quite made up, but I think the potential is there for more testing...
Regards Mark
PS thanks for your kind words

 

[MaximusM3]

Max - Your points are valid, and I agree this is a viable technique.

The only time I pushed Tri-X in Rodinal was using 1:50 dilution and a normal agitation scheme. I think I processed it for about 16 minutes. This was 20 years ago and my only attempt at doing it, but I remember the results very well. The negatives I produced were very grainy, very dense, but not unprintable and they produced images with an interesting look, very gritty and photojournalistic.

If I tried this with Rodinal today, I would use stand or semi-stand development, which would tame the grain and contrast. Today, I don't often need to "push" film, and if I'm doing any type of street photography or am in a situation where I need to hand-hold my camera in low light, I use Delta 3200 or T-Max P3200. Extreme underexposure and "push" processing don't give me a look I like or currently have use for. It's nice to know that the tools are out there for emergency use, though, and they do produce work with a distinctive look. Depends on what you want.

Peter Gomena

Best,

Hi Peter,

I agree that Tri-X may not be the best option if one is planning ahead or just after a certain look, but that's usually the film in my bag so if I am stuck, I know I can make it work somehow. Always a matter of taste...or necessities of the moment. As always, no right or wrong in photography

best,

Max

 

[MaximusM3]

Hi Pentaxuser
I'm going though the evaluation this winter. Last winter I did some Acros in a darkened room, grey carded at 1/30 at f5,6 with my Mintola spotmeter F set at 6400.
This shot was 1/60 at f5,6 ~ equivalent to EI 12,800

Far from perfect, but for me it's a test, a work in progress.
I semi stand developed in Rodinal 1:100 (5ml in 500ml water) for 20 mins, the negs are a bit thin for conventional printing, they scan OK but next time I'll try 45 mins or even an hour.

I think that this is contentious for some people, but I'm starting to think Rodinal is a sort of chemical HDR, the way it holds back the highlights and lets the shadows 'catch up' contrast can be low as pushing increases it anyhow and low light often gives high contrast shadow/highlights.
Obviously my mind isn't quite made up, but I think the potential is there for more testing...
Regards Mark
PS thanks for your kind words

Mark,

I would say that it is pretty awesome, especially for Acros, and it certainly has potential. Yes, Rodinal IS the magic potion

 

[2F/2F]

Pretty good if you like a shot that looks like it was seven stops underexposed and manipulated all to hell with a computer to get it to resemble a normal image – which you very well might. I am, of course, teasing, but what would this image mean to us on A.P.U.G. if "the negs are a bit thin for conventional printing, they scan OK" (especially since "a bit thin" is really a stretch; they are a LOT thin)?

The results are not surprising. You will get something on a shot that is seven stops underexposed as long as you have things in the shot that are brighter than seven stops from zone 0. The film will not just be blank. The pic does not mean that Rodinal and stand development are magic, though. You cannot add information where none was recorded in the first place. All you can do is build up some extra density in the lowly-exposed areas, and play with contrast as much as you can to get a passable result; both of these statements can be seen in the posted example.

My point is simply that Acros seven stops underexposed is still Acros seven stops underexposed, no matter what one does to it in development. There is nothing magic about this combination that gives you anything other than what you would expect from a negative that is seven stops underexposed. In other words, don't go around exposing Across at 12,500 and expect to get consistently printable images.

 

[Matthew Rusbarsky]

I was bored the other night and conducted a very unscientific test. I went out around midnight to shoot dark streets with no meter and a box cam loaded with Tri-X. Bracketed my shots f22 1s 3s 10s. Came home and dumped it in Rodinal, 500ml, 1:100, 2 hours semi stand. Every frame can be printed. Went back the next night with a Luna Pro to meter the scene of my best neg. I figure it to be a at least a 5 stop push.

 

[michaelbsc]

Yes, Rodinal IS the magic potion

Well, I am not that familiar with Rodinal and stand development, but I think I'm picking up a few things watching the various threads about it over the past few years. Let me recount several things I think I understand, and you folks correct me where I'm wrong.

First, everyone (mostly) agrees that you can shift a film's characteristic curves with dilution and agitation, whether you like D-76, Xtol, Rodinal, or Geritol. This really all about twisting the film's response curve to fit an out of design spec scene.

Second, I've got agree with 2F/2F here. If it ain't in the film, no developer will put it in the film.

Third, the old POP papers had a self limiting characteristic that came from self shielding as the shadows darkened. This compressed the shadow range in the negative, and made high contrast negatives the order of the day when POP paper ruled the barnyard.

Fourth, very dilute minimal agitation development performs a similar "compensating" effect by local developer exhaustion that self limits the dark parts of the negatives, but since this is the negative instead of the print it is occurring in the highlights, not the shadows. This compresses the density range of the negative by squashing the highlights.

Fifth, the significantly long development times has the effect of greatly expanding the shadows that are squashed down toward the toe of the response curve because the developer is not depleted.

So, let's say we're five stops underexposed. For Tri-X that's 6400. Everything that would ordinarily land in the mid tones is crushed down into the bottom zone or perhaps bottom two zones. What would ordinarily be the highlights, zone 8&9, are recorded in zones 3&4, maybe 5.

Most of the time scenes like this are really 12 or 14 stops wide, not the "standard" 10 stops we think in, and this results in real data recorded in zones 7, or 9. So an ordinary N+5 development would probably bring out whatever might be recorded crushed down in the toe, but it would blow out the things that are actually recorded in the upper part of the curve.

Because we have this localized self limiting effect those highlights do not have enough developer to blow out. But the toe region does get stretched out significantly, and whatever really is recorded there gets stretched out with it.

One would theorize, or at least I would theorize that this will make the curve much more S-shaped than linear.

Do I understand all of this correctly?

 

[Mark Antony]

Pretty good if you like a shot that looks like it was seven stops underexposed and manipulated all to hell with a computer to get it to resemble a normal image – which you very well might. I am, of course, teasing, but what would this image mean to us on A.P.U.G. if "the negs are a bit thin for conventional printing, they scan OK" (especially since "a bit thin" is really a stretch; they are a LOT thin)?

Yes they are thin, not really good enough to print, but it was a test! I'm sure I can get better results with longer dev times.

The reason for the test was that earlier I had taken a roll of Acros (by mistake I thought I had Neopan 1600) and exposed it at 1600.
Realising my error I decided to stand develop in Rodinal 1:100 for 25 mins

Now this was taken at night in a very dark pub, about 1/15 sec at f4 from memory (Leica M4P with f3,5 Elmar)
It prints easily.
Gotta go to work now, so I'll post later...

 

[ruilourosa]

You cannot push film...


you will get a bit of a pictorialist with that amount of push with rodinal, but maybe with some of the versions of rodinal, like rodinal +vitaC or rodinal +sodium sulfite or even rodinal +borax you can get away with smaller grain and less time of development.

i always use a normal solvent developer like d-76 or x-tol for those purposes, usually highly diluted and usually with looooooong developing times

 

[Mark Antony]

Actually I find that I get finer grain with Rodinal stand develop than I do with Microphen stock with normal agitation. I think Rodinal is much worse grain wise if you have normal agitation and dilutions; for instance I get more grain with Rodinal Delta 3200 at 1600 1:25 at 11mins than I do with Delta 3200 at 12,000 with Rodinal 1:100 for half an hour+ stand develop.

Here is Delta 3200 in Rodinal, not stand developed but the grain is fine enough for me (I'm posting this blind as I can't reach pbase from work)
Dead Link Removed

Not too bad considering peoples acertion that Rodinal give 'golf ball' grain and is sub optimal for push processing.

I'm not sure what it is, I've tried extended development with lots of developers but rarely get say more than a stop before I get grain and high contrast.

I think it has something to do with compensating effect on the highlights stand developing exausts the solution. They are of course on the same place on the curve as the mid tones in a normal exposure.
The shadows are into the area where they are under-exposed in the toe, these build with density some of which may be chemical fogging (I'm not sure).
The result it a surprisinly fine grain compressed negative with less tonal range, but because the subjects are often under artificial light you can get away with the way they print.

I wouldn't put borax with Rodinal, I'm sure that that would just raise the ph, and suphite may make the grain less-not sure but grain is not an issue for me with this technique.

I also would say that I've tried this stand method with other developers with quite disasterous results ID11 doesn't dilute and stand develop very well.
I think the strength of Rodinal (and what makes it a magic sauce to some) is that you get very few developing artifacts like bromide drag even at dilutions like 1:200
You literally can just use initial agitation an leave it for two hours with pretty good results-I don't think you can do that well with ID11/D76 or even liquid syrups like Ilfotec HC/Kodak HC110.

I will do some more scientific testing, Acros at 12,800 is probably too far but when I get time (with 3 kids under 10 thats not often) I'll try to do some tests.

 

[topoxforddoc]

I routinely push HP5 to ASA 1600 (35mm though) in XTOL. I have pushed HP5 to 3200 in XTOL, but I do that very rarely. I'm not sure I'd want to push HP5 by 2 stops in Rodinal though, as that would get pretty grainy. Pushing HP5 in XTOL to 1600 gives you pretty fine grain, and it's not too contrasty.

Here's a couple of examples - Madeleine Peyroux HP5 (35mm) in XTOL at 1600

http://topoxforddoc.zenfolio.com/p1052974996

Best wishes,

Charlie
www.charlie-chan.co.uk

 

[Rinthe]

Well I just developed a roll with Rodinal 1:25 for 20mins at 20C. From the negatives it's looking fine, it's drying right now. We'll see what happens when I scan it.

 

[pentaxuser]

I routinely push HP5 to ASA 1600 (35mm though) in XTOL. I have pushed HP5 to 3200 in XTOL, but I do that very rarely. I'm not sure I'd want to push HP5 by 2 stops in Rodinal though, as that would get pretty grainy. Pushing HP5 in XTOL to 1600 gives you pretty fine grain, and it's not too contrasty.

Here's a couple of examples - Madeleine Peyroux HP5 (35mm) in XTOL at 1600

http://topoxforddoc.zenfolio.com/p1052974996

Best wishes,

Charlie
www.charlie-chan.co.uk

Thanks. Nice example of the versatility of HP5+ in Xtol, especially as it is only 35mm.

pentaxuser

 

[Rinthe]

well that turned out pretty good imo. http://www.flickr.com/rinthe/

 

[brian steinberger]

well that turned out pretty good imo. http://www.flickr.com/rinthe/

Rinthe, these are nice, a good dark look. How were you metering these, in camera or spot metering?

 

[Rinthe]

I used a sekonic meter

 

[maarten m]

turned out pretty good

and how did you develop?

maarten.

 

[Rinthe]

Rodinal 1:25 for 20mins

just developed 2 more rolls the same way. and theres one more i'm going to develop soon.

Will post on my flickr in the next few days

 

[Rinthe]

here are some portraits pushed to 3200

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rinthe/5078016388/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rinthe/5077421125/

 

[hpulley]

Very nice work! The contrast and grain looks great. What sort of shutter speed were you using for those portraits?

 

[Rinthe]

that i do not remember. but they were both hand held without Mirror lock up

 

[brian steinberger]

This is all great stuff. I find HP5 best when underexposed, atleast to EI 800 for general shooting.